Review: Apple’s Retina iPad mini is the small tablet we wanted a year ago

"a 4:3 screen is better suited to use in landscape mode for many use cases. It's surprising just how much more of the Ars homepage the iPad can show off at once relative to the Nexus 7's 16:10 screen."

It's funny how 16:10 was supposed to be superior to 4:3, up until the moment Apple started using 4:3 screens again. Question to Ars: doesn't your argument apply in exactly the same way on a laptop screen? Won't a 4:3 laptop screen also show off more of the Ars homepage?

It all comes down to usage. Are you primarily going to be using it for video? Or for reading?

"a 4:3 screen is better suited to use in landscape mode for many use cases. It's surprising just how much more of the Ars homepage the iPad can show off at once relative to the Nexus 7's 16:10 screen."

It's funny how 16:10 was supposed to be superior to 4:3, up until the moment Apple started using 4:3 screens again. Question to Ars: doesn't your argument apply in exactly the same way on a laptop screen? Won't a 4:3 laptop screen also show off more of the Ars homepage?

How often do you turn your laptop on its side so you can use the screen in portrait mode?

And how often do you use a big onscreen touch keyboard on your notebook screen?

Both of those questions are irrelevant because Ars was specifically praising the ability to see more of a web page in landscape mode. This is exactly the same scenario as looking at a web page on a laptop screen. 4:3 may be better for portrait, and it may be better when typing on an onscreen keyboard, but those are not the reasons that Ars gave for praising 4:3.

The chart in your link again confirms what I've said: Most of the 30% cut is handed through to the payment providers.

From the rest (which may or may not be less than the 14% assumed in that chart), Apple has to fund everything else:

• Data centers (initial investment, maintenance, operation including 100% renewable power generation, ...)• App Store maintenance and oversight• manual app reviews (not just for the initial one, but for every single update)• cross-subsidies for all the free apps which generate the same costs to Apple (except payment processing) but bring in zero revenue

And so on.

Gene Munster is (shall we say) very close to Microsoft, so his assumptions about Apple's numbers should still be taken with some caution, but you can slice and dice it whichever way you like: Even under the most extreme assumptions the App Store simply can't provide any kind of profit comparable to Apple's income from hardware sales. It's numerically impossible.

That, in turn, lead to Tim Cook making the case that free apps are a big part of the iOS app store ecosystem, and that Apple supports those apps — many of which make developers money in indirect ways — in order to support the broader iOS platform as a whole.

At that point, Peter Oppenheimer added, “We run the App Store just a little over breakeven,” implicitly making the case that the App Store was not a big profit generator for the company.

...or if it turns out some profit in the pocket change order of magnitude for Apple. That's basically all there is to it.

Google is going to sell you adds on your iPad as well, unless you want to use Bing and dump Gmail.

There's more than just Bing, of course I don't use a mail provider which is mining the content of my mails for advertising, my primary browser (iCab mobile) has an ad filter and I use ad-free apps almost exclusively.

I'm not for sale – and I pay my hard-earned money for products which are actually worth it.

That's not exclusive to iPad though. Anyone could do the same on an Android device, most people just don't really care though. Whether its iOS or Android.

On Android it gets pretty difficult and inconvenient to extricate yourself completely from Google's tendrils. Besides the need to replace all Google Services (which has its limits anyway), there simply aren't enough ad-free apps to actually get rid of them. On iOS it is not difficult at all to go completely without meeting ads, even to a significant extent in the browser. There are tons of high-grade ad-free apps in the App Store.

It is very noticeable what the entire intent behind the different ecosystems is:

On iOS you have already paid for the hardware and for the apps – you're free to use them as you like wthout molestation or intrusion. The noticeable main intent is to keep you as the paying customer entertained and satisfied so you'll voluntarily come back for more.

On Android you're basically in debt: You have received the hardware effectively at cost and you don't pay for the services or software either, so you have effectively assented to have your privacy mined for profit in exchange – and that is a completely different world. You're not even the customer – the customers are the mobile providers and Google's ad buyers. As a user you're just the cattle herded on their behalf and for their profit.

Android appears not to have been designed with 64-bit processors in mind. Oops.

On the contrary, the Linux kernel that Android uses has supported 64 bit for about 20 years now. "because Android is based on Linux, it’s had the ability to work with 64-bit processing for a long, long time. Word straight Linux Foundation Executive Director Jim Zemlin suggests that there isn’t even any “special development process” that has to be done for Android to handle 64-bit processing power – it just works." http://www.slashgear.com/android-64-bit ... -17298038/

On Android it gets pretty difficult and inconvenient to extricate yourself completely from Google's tendrils. Besides the need to replace all Google Services (which has its limits anyway), there simply aren't enough ad-free apps to actually get rid of them. On iOS it is not difficult at all to go completely without meeting ads, even to a significant extent in the browser. There are tons of high-grade ad-free apps in the App Store.

It is very noticeable what the entire intent behind the different ecosystems is:

On iOS you have already paid for the hardware and for the apps – you're free to use them as you like wthout molestation or intrusion. The noticeable main intent is to keep you as the paying customer entertained and satisfied so you'll voluntarily come back for more.

On Android you're basically in debt: You have received the hardware effectively at cost and you don't pay for the services or software either, so you have effectively assented to have your privacy mined for profit in exchange – and that is a completely different world. You're not even the customer – the customers are the mobile providers and Google's ad buyers. As a user you're just the cattle herded on their behalf and for their profit.

And I know very well which of the two approaches I personally prefer.

Thats the completely opposite of how I view the iOS platform.

You're locked to the App store, and everything is iTunes this, iTunes that. Where as on Android you're basicaly free to do as you choose.

As for inherently being in debt when you purchase an Android device, that's nonsense. Google isn't paying Samsung money to launch a bazillion different phones, they're very obviously making a profit on the hardware alone.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Nexus devices where sold at cost though, to showcase the platform. Personally I don't mind getting things for cost, no strings attached. And I suspect a lot of people feel the same.

edit:

An example of this mindset I have, is my Lumia 520. Some of the stuff is flat out brilliant, in any context. Some other things, like a relatively small app store for Windows Phone, relatively short battery life, not so much.

But at the end of the day, I paid 100 USD for that phone, and it has features making it comparable to 400 USD phones. I know Microsoft subsidized it, but rather than bemoaning Microsofts tendrils, I am just content that I got a really, really, good deal.

Both of those questions are irrelevant because Ars was specifically praising the ability to see more of a web page in landscape mode. This is exactly the same scenario as looking at a web page on a laptop screen. 4:3 may be better for portrait, and it may be better when typing on an onscreen keyboard, but those are not the reasons that Ars gave for praising 4:3.

No, it's not. If you had read my post beyond just those two lines, you would have understood that the total area obviously matters (since our eyes tend to have a fixed field of view and a fixed resolution). My 16:10 17" MacBook Pro effectively offers the screen space of more than two 9.7" iPads in portrait side by side – the format is therefore irrelevant here.

On Android it gets pretty difficult and inconvenient to extricate yourself completely from Google's tendrils. Besides the need to replace all Google Services (which has its limits anyway), there simply aren't enough ad-free apps to actually get rid of them. On iOS it is not difficult at all to go completely without meeting ads, even to a significant extent in the browser. There are tons of high-grade ad-free apps in the App Store.

It is very noticeable what the entire intent behind the different ecosystems is:

On iOS you have already paid for the hardware and for the apps – you're free to use them as you like wthout molestation or intrusion. The noticeable main intent is to keep you as the paying customer entertained and satisfied so you'll voluntarily come back for more.

On Android you're basically in debt: You have received the hardware effectively at cost and you don't pay for the services or software either, so you have effectively assented to have your privacy mined for profit in exchange – and that is a completely different world. You're not even the customer – the customers are the mobile providers and Google's ad buyers. As a user you're just the cattle herded on their behalf and for their profit.

And I know very well which of the two approaches I personally prefer.

Thats the completely opposite of how I view the iOS platform.

You're locked to the App store, and everything is iTunes this, iTunes that. Where as on Android you're basicaly free to do as you choose.

As for inherently being in debt when you purchase an Android device, that's nonsense. Google isn't paying Samsung money to launch a bazillion different phones, they're very obviously making a profit on the hardware alone.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Nexus devices where sold at cost though, to showcase the platform. Personally I don't mind getting things for cost, no strings attached. And I suspect a lot of people feel the same.

Can you name another Android-based phone maker that is actually turning a profit, other than Samsung though?

It's not cherry picking - every ipod touch never saw more than 2 major updates, or over 2 years of upgrades. That .4 on your 2.4 years just happens to be due to the staggered release of iphones and ipads.

This thread is about iPads, not iPods, do try to follow the conversation please (incidentally Android doesn't offer anything remotely decent in the 4" tablet category ruled by the iPod touch so no comparison can be made there). However, this is yet another place where it can be pointed out that even your examples of Apple's worst support are far superior to Android's best. By your own numbers the iPods ran the latest OS for the following times after release:

1st: 2 years, 9 months2nd: 2 years, 6 months3rd: 3 years4th: 3 years

Ouch!

Apple has done nothing remotely like Samsung's Galaxy Tab 2 which was released in April 2012 and only ran the latest until July 2013. That's pretty terrible support. People who buy iPads know that for their extra money they are getting a product that will be secure and maintained for several years.

Uh yes? I could fill the page if I wished, there's tons of Android phone makers.

But what is your point?

Interesting. Since according to Forbes, Apple and Samsung actually account for more than 100% of smartphone profits, because the rest of the competition loses money.

Quote:

The reality is that Apple is quite comfortable with the market share data, because the profit numbers are all Apple. Data from Canaccord Genuity shows that during that same period—Q3 of 2013—Apple made more money than all of its competitors combined, taking in 56 percent of the profit in the mobile device market.

The profit data illustrates how Apple’s primary rival is really Samsung—not Android. Samsung made 53 percent of the profit for the quarter. Apple and Samsung combined actually add up to more than 100 percent of all profit for the mobile industry, because all of the other players, like HTC, LG, Motorola, Nokia, and BlackBerry lost money.

It's sad to see the Nexus 7 getting slaughtered mercilessly in the benchmarks.

$229 vs $399

Oh pifft. It's a two core processor slaughtering a four core processor. What does retail pricing have to do with it?

I can't even imagine what the delta will be when Apple goes 4 core. It's likely to be humiliating. ... Especially since there are no android 64 bit processors even looming on the horizon. Android appears not to have been designed with 64-bit processors in mind. Oops.

Well, a lot of that difference is that Apple is making a good profit, while it's very likely that the Nexus is being sold for not much more than breakeven. That's better than the various Kindle models, of course, which are sold at no better than break even, according to Bezos, or less than break even, as Bezos hints at.

If $230 is a break even price and you're selling for $400... you aren't making a "good" profit. You're making an obscene profit.

If cats could fly and your booking trips on the flying cat express...

Who said $230 is the break even price for an iPad Mini, is it because that's how much a Nexus sells for? I know people have already responded to this in more a detailed and eloquent way than I have. I just couldn't turn down the opportunity to use my flying cats metaphor.

armv8 is 64 bit. Whether we actually need 64bits on 10 to 7 inch tablets is another argument in it of itself, but usually makes sense when we consider the chicken and the egg argument of doing so.

I think there is a 32-bit implementation of ARM v8 available. My point, though, is that there is no denying that the ARM v8 is a superior architecture. It's like comparing a 3.6GHz Core 2 Duo to the 1.3GHz Haswell Core i7. Sure, at some tasks the Core 2 Duo might slightly outperform the Core i7 but on balance the Haswell is the superior chip. The difference between the Snapdragon 800 and the A7 might not be that dramatic, but it is still pretty significant.

Also, compared to the big.LITTLE design of the Samsung Exynos (which Samsung doesn't even use in the North American versions of the Note 3 and Galaxy S4), the A7 is even more impressive because it achieves the high performance and low power consumption far more effectively.

It's 64 bit with 32 bit compatibility. You don't use armv8 for 32 bit only seeing how its target market is the enterprise.

This thread is about iPads, not iPods, do try to follow the conversation please (incidentally Android doesn't offer anything remotely decent in the 4" tablet category ruled by the iPod touch so no comparison can be made there).

The ipod touch runs the same basic ios as the iphone and ipad. To ignore its update history is ridiculous.

Quote:

However, this is yet another place where it can be pointed out that even your examples of Apple's worst support are far superior to Android's best. By your own numbers the iPods ran the latest OS for the following times after release:

1st: 2 years, 9 months2nd: 2 years, 6 months3rd: 3 years4th: 3 years

Ouch!

Apple has done nothing remotely like Samsung's Galaxy Tab 2 which was released in April 2012 and only ran the latest until July 2013. That's pretty terrible support. People who buy iPads know that for their extra money they are getting a product that will be secure and maintained for several years.

Well if we play your game then the Nexus One ran the latest OS for 2 years 2 months, the Nexus S for 2 years and the Galaxy Nexus for 18 months. All with 2 (or 3 for the Gnex) major updates before being retired. So, yeah, uh, you won with more support time.

The 3rd and 4th generation ipod touches also were on the market for longer than two years as well.

Your galaxy tab 2 example is also off seeing how Samsung doesn't get access to the source until after an android release happens. Samsung could very well update it with 4.3 or go straight to 4.4 if they want.

armv8 is 64 bit. Whether we actually need 64bits on 10 to 7 inch tablets is another argument in it of itself, but usually makes sense when we consider the chicken and the egg argument of doing so.

I think there is a 32-bit implementation of ARM v8 available.

You misunderstand. ARM v8 has a provision that you can choose to include in your silicon backwards compatibility with 32-bit ARM code. However the point of v8 is 64-bit, there isn't really a reason to go to v8 without that [sizable performance increase, for a couple of reasons, along with the ability to handle >4GB addressing...the later not mattering much for mobile devices right now].

Android appears not to have been designed with 64-bit processors in mind. Oops.

On the contrary, the Linux kernel that Android uses has supported 64 bit for about 20 years now. "because Android is based on Linux, it’s had the ability to work with 64-bit processing for a long, long time. Word straight Linux Foundation Executive Director Jim Zemlin suggests that there isn’t even any “special development process” that has to be done for Android to handle 64-bit processing power – it just works." http://www.slashgear.com/android-64-bit ... -17298038/

Okay. Point taken. But. There won't be any android driven 64-bit processors next year. (Samsung has already said so.)

So what are you figure; 2014? 2015? 2016? And when one of platforms does pop out, how many 64-bit apps will be available for it at launch? Zit.

Meanwhile on the Apple side of the fence, things will have been puttering along….

And I would imagine by the time the first optimized 64-bit android thingy pops up, things will pretty much reflect the way the market for apps stands right now: Apple tablets; over 400 K optimized for retina apps. On the android side, ah, not so much.

If there's no incentive for android developers to come out with Hi-Rez versions of their existing apps right now, I doubt in the future there will be much incentive for coming out with 64 bit versions for precisely the same reason. It's a "lowest common denominator" thing.

Android appears not to have been designed with 64-bit processors in mind. Oops.

On the contrary, the Linux kernel that Android uses has supported 64 bit for about 20 years now. "because Android is based on Linux, it’s had the ability to work with 64-bit processing for a long, long time. Word straight Linux Foundation Executive Director Jim Zemlin suggests that there isn’t even any “special development process” that has to be done for Android to handle 64-bit processing power – it just works." http://www.slashgear.com/android-64-bit ... -17298038/

Okay. Point taken. But. There won't be any android driven 64-bit processors next year. (Samsung has already said so.)

So what are you figure; 2014? 2015? 2016? And when one of platforms does pop out, how many 64-bit apps will be available for it at launch? Zit.

Meanwhile on the Apple side of the fence, things will have been puttering along….

And I would imagine by the time the first optimized 64-bit android thingy pops up, things will pretty much reflect the way the market for apps stands right now: Apple tablets; over 400 K optimized for retina apps. On the android side, ah, not so much.

If there's no incentive for android developers to come out with Hi-Rez versions of their existing apps right now, I doubt in the future there will be much incentive for coming out with 64 bit versions for precisely the same reason. It's a "lowest common denominator" thing.

Each phone JIT compiles each program you use for the particular ARM instruction set it uses. Android already has used 3 different ones with no one noticing. All you would need is a armv8 Dalvik compiler, which would come with the phone/tablet. Same process with the upcoming ART.

Android appears not to have been designed with 64-bit processors in mind. Oops.

On the contrary, the Linux kernel that Android uses has supported 64 bit for about 20 years now. "because Android is based on Linux, it’s had the ability to work with 64-bit processing for a long, long time. Word straight Linux Foundation Executive Director Jim Zemlin suggests that there isn’t even any “special development process” that has to be done for Android to handle 64-bit processing power – it just works." http://www.slashgear.com/android-64-bit ... -17298038/

There is a big difference between working on it and leveraging the advantages of it. Android's biggest problem with the later really isn't in the Linux core, either.

Yeah, like playing games... which is the only thing a some people use their tablet for (especially kids).

When the retina mini was still a rumour I argued we would not see it until next year, because I looked at the Nexus 7's processing performance and did not think Apple could make one that has acceptable video performance without drastic price rises and a massive battery.

I totally underestimated their ability to make a system on a chip as fast and power efficient as the A7 while still maintaining fairly low prices.

Personally I still have an iPad 1 and am perfectly happy with the CPU performance, I just wish it had more RAM. I'm going to be buying an iPad Air soon... after I've waited a bit for any manufacturing issues (image retention/etc) to go away.

It's sad to see the Nexus 7 getting slaughtered mercilessly in the benchmarks.

$229 vs $399

Oh pifft. It's a two core processor slaughtering a four core processor. What does retail pricing have to do with it?

I can't even imagine what the delta will be when Apple goes 4 core. It's likely to be humiliating. ... Especially since there are no android 64 bit processors even looming on the horizon. Android appears not to have been designed with 64-bit processors in mind. Oops.

Oh please. Climb down off your pimples.'You" is not spelled as 'u" and 'singel?!?' Whatever. If you like the Nexus, or it's Snapdragon ilk, go for it! But don't buy from a benchmark or responsiveness standpoint you'll be very disappointed.

Uh yes? I could fill the page if I wished, there's tons of Android phone makers.

But what is your point?

Interesting. Since according to Forbes, Apple and Samsung actually account for more than 100% of smartphone profits, because the rest of the competition loses money.

Either you're misrepresenting Forbes, or they're just incorrect.

/shrug.

And all the same, I don't understand the obviously incorrect point. What is it?

edit:

I read your link. You were misrepresenting Forbes. They listed the competetion as " HTC, LG, Motorola, Nokia, and BlackBerry lost money.". Obviously companies like ZTC, Oppo and Huawei exist, and are competitors. Though Oppo is the only one I actually looked up, it stands to reason that either ZTC or Huawei is also profitable in the area, since Oppo was only listed as 2nd in China.

If $230 is a break even price and you're selling for $400... you aren't making a "good" profit. You're making an obscene profit.

The iPad mini has a custom-designed 64 bit CPU right now already, ahead of any competitor – in two years, Apple will no longer sell any 32 bit devices and app developers are already beginning to exploit the new capabilities of the much faster CPU platform (ARMv8 vs. ARMv7).

The mini also has a much larger display than the Nexus 7, and an aluminium case.

In any iOS device you also get multiple years of day-one full-version OS upgrades plus security updates, plus arguably higher base cost in developing iOS in the first place.

The difference between zero profit and substantial profit also means the difference between the manufacturer having to mine you for other sources of profit (in Google's case selling you to their ad customers) and the manufacturer actually valuing you as the paying customer and actally treating you as such.

So no, the two are not really comparable. You pay more, but you also get substantially more.

Well it rather depends what you use it for doesn't it? For the a lot of people, a kindle fire is just fine. Besides around 80% of the tablet market is android, so there is a lot more software out there for that OS. My nephew got the new ipad and I personally do not see much difference between it and my kindle fire , except a big price difference. I don't mind paying more for something better, but I don't see enough difference to justify the price differential.

As to Apple treating you better, sorry I just had to laugh out loud at that, when they rip you off for over $200 for a cracked display. Apple is not shy about taking advantage of it's customers.

Uh yes? I could fill the page if I wished, there's tons of Android phone makers.

But what is your point?

Interesting. Since according to Forbes, Apple and Samsung actually account for more than 100% of smartphone profits, because the rest of the competition loses money.

Either you're misrepresenting Forbes, or they're just incorrect.

/shrug.

And all the same, I don't understand the obviously incorrect point. What is it?

edit:

I read your link. You were misrepresenting Forbes. They listed the competetion as " HTC, LG, Motorola, Nokia, and BlackBerry lost money.". Obviously companies like ZTC, Oppo and Huawei exist, and are competitors. Though Oppo is the only one I actually looked up, it stands to reason that either ZTC or Huawei is also profitable in the area, since Oppo was only listed as 2nd in China.

According to whatever info I can find, neither ZTC nor Huwaei make profits due to smartphone sales. Huwaei, for example, makes most of its profits from things like infrastructure and the like.

And think about it for a second: The only way for Apple and Samsung to combine for 109% of profits is for the others to be losing money.

Well it rather depends what you use it for doesn't it? For the a lot of people, a kindle fire is just fine. Besides around 80% of the tablet market is android, so there is a lot more software out there for that OS. My nephew got the new ipad and I personally do not see much difference between it and my kindle fire , except a big price difference. I don't mind paying more for something better, but I don't see enough difference to justify the price differential.

As to Apple treating you better, sorry I just had to laugh out loud at that, when they rip you off for over $200 for a cracked display. Apple is not shy about taking advantage of it's customers.

Of Apple's 900,000+ apps in the App Store, over 400,000 are designed as tablet specific. The Google Play Store doesn't have that many.

If $230 is a break even price and you're selling for $400... you aren't making a "good" profit. You're making an obscene profit.

The iPad mini has a custom-designed 64 bit CPU right now already, ahead of any competitor – in two years, Apple will no longer sell any 32 bit devices and app developers are already beginning to exploit the new capabilities of the much faster CPU platform (ARMv8 vs. ARMv7).

The mini also has a much larger display than the Nexus 7, and an aluminium case.

In any iOS device you also get multiple years of day-one full-version OS upgrades plus security updates, plus arguably higher base cost in developing iOS in the first place.

The difference between zero profit and substantial profit also means the difference between the manufacturer having to mine you for other sources of profit (in Google's case selling you to their ad customers) and the manufacturer actually valuing you as the paying customer and actally treating you as such.

So no, the two are not really comparable. You pay more, but you also get substantially more.

Well it rather depends what you use it for doesn't it? For the a lot of people, a kindle fire is just fine. Besides around 80% of the tablet market is android, so there is a lot more software out there for that OS. My nephew got the new ipad and I personally do not see much difference between it and my kindle fire , except a big price difference. I don't mind paying more for something better, but I don't see enough difference to justify the price differential.

As to Apple treating you better, sorry I just had to laugh out loud at that, when they rip you off for over $200 for a cracked display. Apple is not shy about taking advantage of it's customers.

People look at the Nexus and tablets like it and think that's android. It's not. The vast majority (over 80%) of their market is in the second and third world. These little more than feature phones with a big glass front. More software? That's debatable. Most of it is crap. Not to mention the adware, spyware and just plain malware that you have to deal with.

Did you really think android was free? Not by a longshot.

The Kindle is a good machine. But going into it, you need to know what you're dealing with: A sales tool.

An iPad to get you into the Apple ecosystem and Amazon's marketplace. The reverse is not true.

And think about it for a second: The only way for Apple and Samsung to combine for 109% of profits is for the others to be losing money.

Not if you refuse to think for a second yourself first (I did though, I even commented on your link), Forbes listed the companies they considered, not the total of all companies making Android devices.

And all the same, one company could loose a shit load of money, whilst others could make a slim profit. Not that it matters, because we have no knowledge of that being the case.

But what is your point? I specifically named Samsung, they're making money, yes? The other company I mostly associate with making Nexus devices is Asus. Asus also makes a ton of none-Nexus Android devices, surely they're also making money on those?

What I am frankly trying to get to, you're arguing something, but I don't understand what, or why.

So I've heard from multiple places (but all anecdotal) the the mini retina has terrible colour reproduction, to a very noticeable point, while the Nexus does much better blacks and brightness, and the iPad Air does much better colour reproduction. Was this noticeable in the review?

And think about it for a second: The only way for Apple and Samsung to combine for 109% of profits is for the others to be losing money.

Not if you refuse to think for a second yourself first (I did though, I even commented on your link), Forbes listed the companies they considered, not the total of all companies making Android devices.

HTC makes a small profit (sometimes), accounting for something like 1%. LG is on the bubble effectively breaking even (for the phones themselves, they do sell parts (screens) to other companies and I believe are making money there). Everyone else, other than Apple and Samsung, is losing money.

Realistically you can treat Apple and Samsung as the only smartphone brands turning a profit (obviously if you start including the full supply chain you'll get more companies turning profit). *shrug*

Well, a lot of that difference is that Apple is making a good profit, while it's very likely that the Nexus is being sold for not much more than breakeven. That's better than the various Kindle models, of course, which are sold at no better than break even, according to Bezos, or less than break even, as Bezos hints at.

If $230 is a break even price and you're selling for $400... you aren't making a "good" profit. You're making an obscene profit.

I don't think you understand. I didn't say that the tablets are all equal. They are not. Apple's tablets are made out of a block of machines aluminum, while these cheaper models are made out of injected plastic. Apple's models use a much better SoC, which costs more. They use faster memory, both RAM and flash.

These devices aren't the same. That's why these cheaper models tend to get creamed. I never said that they should sell for the same price. You assumed that I did. But the prices would be closer if the manufacturers were interested in making a decent profit.

Remember that Amazon thinks, incorrectly I believe, that they will make up the losses in content, and other sales. I don't believe they will, but that's what they think.

Google is interested only in your private data to sell to other companies for their advertising. Remember, according to Google,s own financial statements, even with Motorola, 96% of their sales and profits come from advertising.

Apple make almost all of its profits from hardware sales. They have to support a lot of free software, and just a few pennies profits on every dollar of content they sell.

They need to make a pretty good profit to support that, and the extra service they offer.

"That said, when your tablet starts at $399 and you charge $100 for storage upgrades that your competitors charge $40 for, some complaints about pricing are perhaps warranted."

I would have dropped the "perhaps".

Apple really needs it's nose rubbed in this. With the increased size of apps after adding retina class graphics and 64 bit code, 16 Gigs is no longer a valid starting point. Apple has moved from an 8 Gig baseline in the past to a 16 Gig baseline currently, so it's not like they don't know what to do here.

Since Apple's cost for moving from 16 Gigs standard to having 32 Gigs be the new standard would be less than ten bucks, it's pretty indefensible.

Premium prices should come with premium features.

Don't get me wrong, the A7 kicks ass, but either stop skimping out on the flash, quit price gouging on the upgrades, or include a memory slot on board and let us buy our own.

I know Apple gets hit with this every time. But if people read the reviews on Anandtach, they'll see that Apple's memory is much faster. And fast memory is expensive. Look at memory cards for cameras. You'll notice that the fastest ones cost a LOT of money. One reason why Apple's performance is better is because of faster RAM and flash. It's also why having slots for flash cards makes little sense. With people constantly not understanding this, they get cheap memory cards which slow their tablets down even more.

Everyone who buys a newer DSLR knows that you can't buy cheap memory cards. People buying tablets should also understand that cheap, slow, memory isn't great either.

But sites like this have articles where the author doesn't understand the issue either, and so it becomes folklore, wrong that it is.

Well it rather depends what you use it for doesn't it? For the a lot of people, a kindle fire is just fine. Besides around 80% of the tablet market is android, so there is a lot more software out there for that OS. My nephew got the new ipad and I personally do not see much difference between it and my kindle fire , except a big price difference. I don't mind paying more for something better, but I don't see enough difference to justify the price differential.

If you don't see a difference, buy the cheaper one, by all means.

I personally couldn't live with one of those cheap devices – display size and format, availability of high-grade software, OS upgrade & update support, security and manufacturer support for the whole widget are essentials for me in actual, practical use.

As to Apple treating you better, sorry I just had to laugh out loud at that, when they rip you off for over $200 for a cracked display. Apple is not shy about taking advantage of it's customers.

I keep shaking my head about the insane expectations people have come to develop nowadays. Neither high-grade parts nor labour are for free – if you're living in a fantasy land where that is the case, you're getting ripped off while you're not looking. I rather pay decent prices for decent quality and work than participating in the perpetual lowering of standards all around until absolutely everything is just cheap junk.

So I've heard from multiple places (but all anecdotal) the the mini retina has terrible colour reproduction, to a very noticeable point, while the Nexus does much better blacks and brightness, and the iPad Air does much better colour reproduction. Was this noticeable in the review?

It's basically on par with the previous mini, which is not "terrible" either, just not quite as good as the other recent Apple displays. Apparently this is the one compromise they had to make to get brightness and battery endurance up to where they are while still doubling the resolution.

It's 2013, not 1995. Why do we have to keep going through this? This is a technical site, and we might as well use accurate and correct technical explanations.

The issue is not "theoretical" WiFi speeds. The speed used at the PHY level is not theoretical --- if the PHY rate is 300 Mbps, then 300Mbps of data are being sent out. The issue is that GOODPUT is not the same thing as the PHY throughout.

One part of this is the usual overhead --- headers and suchlike to ensure that a packet describes its data correctly. A larger part of the overhead is MAC overhead --- time wasted in trying to ensure that two stations don't broadcast at the same time. There are ways around this if one is (a) willing to allow the base station to be the central arbiter and to assign slots when everyone else gets their chance to do something (b) willing to define a RACH (random access channel) which is a tiny sliver of time/frequency space when new entrants to the network can announce their presence and requirements (essentially a mechanism for "interrupts") which doesn't stomp over the entire network to perform these low nitrate operations.

The telcos obviously use this sort of co-ordinated model, but, for reasons I do not understand, the 802.11 committee seem determined to stick with the existing MAC rather than a co-ordinated MAC even though it costs 35% or so in performance.

Well, a lot of that difference is that Apple is making a good profit, while it's very likely that the Nexus is being sold for not much more than breakeven. That's better than the various Kindle models, of course, which are sold at no better than break even, according to Bezos, or less than break even, as Bezos hints at.

If $230 is a break even price and you're selling for $400... you aren't making a "good" profit. You're making an obscene profit.

If you don't like it, you don't need to buy it. My guess is that we'll see a price drop in mid-2014 when yields improve. Apple may have priced this so that demand somewhat matches the constrained supplies during the holidays. It might not be much (maybe $379 or $349) but it might be noticeable.

I'm sorry, but when have we ever seen a price drop on an iOS device in mid-generation? These do not occur. The way Apple has accelerated their release schedule, it's more likely we'll see updated hardware in mid-2014 than a price drop.

Well there was a price drop partway through on the original iPhone :-)

But your point is correct. If Apple feel a need to boost the iPad mini in six months, they are far more likely to do so by doubling RAM, or speed-bumping the CPU, than they are to drop the price.

"That said, when your tablet starts at $399 and you charge $100 for storage upgrades that your competitors charge $40 for, some complaints about pricing are perhaps warranted."

I would have dropped the "perhaps".

Apple really needs it's nose rubbed in this. With the increased size of apps after adding retina class graphics and 64 bit code, 16 Gigs is no longer a valid starting point. Apple has moved from an 8 Gig baseline in the past to a 16 Gig baseline currently, so it's not like they don't know what to do here.

Since Apple's cost for moving from 16 Gigs standard to having 32 Gigs be the new standard would be less than ten bucks, it's pretty indefensible.

Premium prices should come with premium features.

Don't get me wrong, the A7 kicks ass, but either stop skimping out on the flash, quit price gouging on the upgrades, or include a memory slot on board and let us buy our own.

Apple's flash seems to be of higher quality than that in competing tablets.My iPhone5 and iPad3 can write sustained (eg when I sync via USB and movies are copied over) at around 24MB/s. The last time I looked at the Android reviews, the equivalent speed seemed to be around 8 to 12MB/s --- not quite as bad as a cheap USB flash drive, but not in the same league as iOS devices,

You are welcome to say that you don't care about flash speed (just like you don't care about the screen, or the OS, or the CPU, or whatever) but it's not helpful to compare these two numbers and say one is "gouging" and the other is not. $40 for an extra 16GB of crappy flash is no better a deal than $100 for 16GB of better quality flash. Both are price discrimination, and both exist for utterly obvious reasons --- they are a way to allow both lower end consumers to purchase the product AND simultaneously to allow higher end consumers to pay more to help subsidize the R&D for the next product. Think of it as a kind of income tax towards tablet research.